I've managed to avoid Essentials, until now...

[Obryn]

A friend and I are tag teaming DMing and I'm currently playing at the moment, though as it's a shared campaign we collaborate on allowed content. So far both of us have managed to avoid having anything to do with Essentials in the game.

Until now.

Last night one of the players, a funny guy we both like, said that he'd like to play an Enchanter mage.

Now I have always held the opinion that players are responsible for creating their own characters, barring anything that I specifically don't want in my game story, think doesn't work or that I don't think a player is ready for. And this is the reason why I think I might even change my mind.

However, I've been against Essentials from the beginning mainly from a $$$ and management aspect. The money side: I've spent quite a bit of money on books, and it seems a bit much to fork out more dough again. The management side: I keep back ups of my players characters in case their are accidents (like when a player's computer crashed) as well as a way to look in detail at a player's sheet and make suggestions, often while I am online with them.

I also stopped my subscritpion, mostly due to the fact that when I tried the new builder, my computer couldn't run it properly.

I am willing to compromise with him, but the long and short of it is that he may be bringing a character that I have no clue how it runs, particularly the feats which are not always explained in the limited space on the sheet.

So should I let him? My fellow DM is of a similar mind that I am. I am willing to swallow my pride so a player can have the character that he wants, it's the book keeping that worries me.

Enchanters are one of the better classes in the Essentials line. They fill a niche which, IMO, has been pretty absent so far.

They play a lot like a Wizard, with just a few small differences.

(1) They put their Encounter spells in a spellbook, too, and can pick between both of them at the start of each day.
(2) They don't have Rituals
(3) They get 1 less Cantrip
(4) They get the new never-miss Magic Missile for free
(5) They don't get Implement Mastery, and instead get benefits on a school of spells. For an Enchanter, this will be adding 2 to pushes and slides from powers with the Enchantment keyword - which are really only one per level.

-O

 

[Vael]

I'm currently playing in a mixed group of Essentials/non-Essentials classes, and I don't see a major difference. We've got:

- PH2 Druid (me)
- The earlier Assassin
- Hybrid Warlord/Cleric
- Scout
- Cavalier

 

[jimmifett]

There is really nothing special about essentials to make it stick out like a sore thumb. I was wary of it until I got the books, but after reading, I have no problems with it. The 2 player books were less than $15 each and I feel they are worth the price (except for the duplicated rules primer in each book, but i can understand that since either book could potentially be your first DnD book).

At my table I allow 3pp material and homebrew stuff (i need to approve/modify homebrew) as long as I have access to the source material at the table in one form or another if they want to use it. If you are concerned, ask your player to bring an essentials book with them just in case. I wouldn't be too worried over an essentials class breaking any games.

 

[Aegeri]

A mage is just a wizard with some different features. They're essentially (ha) the same thing for the most part. I actually like the mage slightly more than the wizard, but again, basically the same thing. It is really easy to play any essentials class to be honest, most of them are idiot proof and only the sentinel/warpriest/mage are relatively complex. Everything else is dead straightforward and is more than playable by a DM for an absent player with ease. Easier than a regular class actually.

 

[Mengu]

If it's too much headache for you, just say no, your player will get over it. He'll find something else he wants to play. There are a load of non-essential options out there. A bard, sorcerer, or warlock with focus on charisma skills can easily be an enchanter substitute, so he doesn't even need to abandon his character concept.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm firmly of the opinion that the DM has the absolute right to ban any class, race, feat, or sourcebook from his or her campaign, as long as the banning is done up front (rather than retroactively) and applies to everyone. Furthermore, when a new book is released, players do not have the automatic right to use material from that book without the DM's explicit approval. So, if you and your co-DM agree that you do not want Essentials PCs in your game, that's the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. You don't need anybody's permission to say no.

Now, if you're asking whether an Essentials PC will cause problems: Your mileage may vary, of course, but my experience suggests not. In fact, after I ran a couple of trial combats with Essentials characters, it was painful when I had to go back to DMing for a bunch of classic 4E PCs--their turns take so much longer, and there are so many more fiddly little modifiers and conditions flying around. I really want Wizards to hurry up and push out more Essentials material so my next campaign can be Essentials-only.

My suggestion would be to tell the player he can make the enchanter, but it's on a trial basis. After some number of sessions (maybe 3-4), you and your co-DM will give the character a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. If you give it thumbs-down, the player will have to convert to a classic 4E wizard.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

The issue of cost to buy the books and time to master the content is significant, so ultimately the choice is yours. But my sympathies are with your player.

I have become a huge fan of the Essentials content. As a player (though one who does intend some day to get back into DM-ing) I don't intend ever again to play a non-Essentials build. I would even be willing to go Essentials-only (re: feats and powers) if the group wanted to, though I don't see a particular reason to do so. I don't care if the builds can't be optimized to do 1500 damage in a nova round or auto-sleep Orcus -- the simplified character concepts allow me to focus on tactical considerations and (what a thought!) actually watch what fellow PCs are doing in combat instead of worrying excessively about what my own character should do next.

I just hope that WotC keeps putting out more Essentials-styled content so that I don't get stuck playing the same small handful of builds until 5e comes out.

 

[the Jester]

Well, Essentials stuff is absolutely compatible with the rest of 4e, so I think the real problem is that nobody has access to the book.

I've long had a "If the book isn't in our group, neither is anything in it" policy, but 4e's electronic offerings have made that less important- I can look anything that I need to up if I need to- but it's still a good policy imho.

Given that the "Heroes" books are $20, I'd suggest that the player in question either pick it up or see if anyone in the group wants to kick in for it.

 

[Dedekind]

In my relatively (and low-level) experience, you won't even notice the difference. However, I would be upfront about your concerns and see how the player feels about letting you change your mind at a later date.

 

[Nullzone]

It's worth noting that "supporting" essentials (in the sense that the DM has to have the books to be able to vet what his players are doing) costs all of $40. That's all, and it gets you eight classes with between 1 and 3 options for each. The ____ Power books can't even come close to this level of functional value.

Buying the books in community would cost each of the people at a typical table less than you pay for a full service restaurant meal.

That said, the Mage is not a significant departure from the standard PHB Wizard. Most of his powers are at least functionally the same as existing ones, even if they have different names/flavors; the only major changes are a) free never-miss magic missile and b) ridiculously good at-wills.

Banning it is silly. If you think the player is abusing your lack of visibility of his class mechanics, challenge him on the specific points of abuse; don't restrict an entire character design just because you don't have a source book to verify every little tweak he makes. Where's the trust?